Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Syria's WMD
#1
Everyone is now reporting that Syria has 'em and also that Iraq did deliver its WMD to them in the months before the war.

Funny how so many missed that point at the time.
Reply
#2
Not a word there that Iraq delivered WMD to Syria. Just speculation. William in WWI chemical weapons were extensively used they're common now.
Reply
#3
The part where James Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the U.S. invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material "unquestionably" had been moved out of Iraq.

The satellite imagery and other intel said it happened, but Democrats had a stake in disbelieving it to slam Bush. Now that Islamists are a hairsbreadth from getting it, the danger seems to be a real fear - not just idle speculation.
Reply
#4
That was his opinion unsupported by other views or evidence. Mali is now run by terrorists because we helped overthrow Gaddhaffi,,maybe the USA policy is to support Islamic terrorists into POWER? Maybe the USA power elite see this as an avenue to dominate policy like we got to in 1947 al over again? Weaken eveeryone else? It's something to consider.
Reply
#5
Opps, I must have missed this thread while I was out of town this last weekend. I'm moving my initial post over to here.

Quote:I find this neat little bit of news to be very interesting, because it is not being scoffed at by the Left.

Quote:The Syrian regime threatened to use chemical and biological weapons in the case of an external attack yesterday, in what appeared to be a chilling warning to Western and Arab nations pushing for intervention in the country's bloody civil war.

The comments by a foreign ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, were the first public admission by the Syrian government that it possesses such weapons of mass destruction. Mr Makdissi stressed that such weaponry would not be used against the Syrian people.

"All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression," he said.

The Syrian regime is believed to be in possession of large stockpiles of sarin, other nerve agents, and mustard gas. Western officials have voiced concern over their safety and potential deployment in recent weeks.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, described the threat to use them as "unacceptable".

"This is typical of the complete illusion of this regime, that they are the victims of external aggression," Mr Hague said.

Does anyone have any idea where all these chemical weapons may have come from? And what could possibly be the "other nerve agents"? Would anyone care to venture a guess?

Remember the part about "Bush Lied and People Died"?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
We do, vividly. What leaves us with the question why Bush never mentioned that Syria obtained WMD from Iraq, and why did he murder Iraqis, and not Syrians? I'm sure you and Bill will come up with some silly reply, but it boils down to setting the stage for invading Syria with the same old lie. Remember: Obama will remain president, not that Romney clown.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#7
Why do Syria's chemical weapons need to emanate from outside Syria?

You think they don't have chemicals and engineers in Syria?

You 2 must think all Arabs are retarded except for Saddam.
Reply
#8
(07-25-2012, 10:56 AM)Palladin Wrote: Why do Syria's chemical weapons need to emanate from outside Syria?

You think they don't have chemicals and engineers in Syria?

You 2 must think all Arabs are retarded except for Saddam.

Which two?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
I just got this from Stratfor in my email.

Quote:Consequences of the Fall of the Syrian Regime

By George Friedman

We have entered the endgame in Syria. That doesn't mean that we have reached the end by any means, but it does mean that the precondition has been met for the fall of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. We have argued that so long as the military and security apparatus remain intact and effective, the regime could endure. Although they continue to function, neither appears intact any longer; their control of key areas such as Damascus and Aleppo is in doubt, and the reliability of their personnel, given defections, is no longer certain. We had thought that there was a reasonable chance of the al Assad regime surviving completely. That is no longer the case. At a certain point -- in our view, after the defection of a Syrian pilot June 21 and then the defection of the Tlass clan -- key members of the regime began to recalculate the probability of survival and their interests. The regime has not unraveled, but it is unraveling.

The speculation over al Assad's whereabouts and heavy fighting in Damascus is simply part of the regime's problems. Rumors, whether true or not, create uncertainty that the regime cannot afford right now. The outcome is unclear. On the one hand, a new regime might emerge that could exercise control. On the other hand, Syria could collapse into a Lebanon situation in which it disintegrates into regions held by various factions, with no effective central government.

The Russian and Chinese Strategy

The geopolitical picture is somewhat clearer than the internal political picture. Whatever else happens, it is unlikely that al Assad will be able to return to unchallenged rule. The United States, France and other European countries have opposed his regime. Russia, China and Iran have supported it, each for different reasons. The Russians opposed the West's calls to intervene, which were grounded on human rights concerns, fearing that the proposed intervention was simply subterfuge meant to extend Western power and that it would be used against them. The Chinese also supported the Syrians, in part for these same reasons. Both Moscow and Beijing hoped to avoid legitimizing Western pressure based on human rights considerations -- something they had each faced at one time or another. In addition, Russia and China wanted the United States in particular focused on the Middle East rather than on them. They would not have minded a military intervention that would have bogged down the United States, but the United States declined to give that to them.

But the Russian and Chinese game was subtler than that. It focused on Iran. As we have argued, if the al Assad regime were to survive and were to be isolated from the West, it would be primarily dependent on Iran, its main patron. Iran had supplied trainers, special operations troops, supplies and money to sustain the regime. For Iran, the events in Syria represented a tremendous opportunity. Iran already held a powerful position in Iraq, not quite dominating it but heavily influencing it. If the al Assad regime survived and had Iranian support to thank for its survival, Syria would become even more dependent on Iran than was Iraq. This would shore up the Iranian position in Iraq, but more important, it would have created an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to Lebanon, where Hezbollah is an Iranian ally.

The Russians and Chinese clearly understood that if this had happened, the United States would have had an intense interest in undermining the Iranian sphere of influence -- and would have had to devote massive resources to doing so. Russia and China benefitted greatly in the post-9/11 world, when the United States was obsessed with the Islamic world and had little interest or resources to devote to China and Russia. With the end of the Afghanistan war looming, this respite seemed likely to end. Underwriting Iranian hegemony over a region that would inevitably draw the United States' attention was a low-cost, high-return strategy.

The Chinese primarily provided political cover, keeping the Russians from having to operate alone diplomatically. They devoted no resources to the Syrian conflict but did continue to oppose sanctions against Iran and provided trade opportunities for Iran. The Russians made a much larger commitment, providing material and political support to the al Assad regime.

It seems the Russians began calculating the end for the regime some time ago. Russia continued to deliver ammunition and other supplies to Syria but pulled back on a delivery of helicopters. Several attempts to deliver the helicopters "failed" when British insurers of the ship pulled coverage. That was the reason the Russians gave for not delivering the helicopters, but obviously the Russians could have insured the ship themselves. They were backing off from supporting al Assad, their intelligence indicating trouble in Damascus. In the last few days the Russians have moved to the point where they had their ambassador to France suggest that the time had come for al Assad to leave -- then, of course, he denied having made the statement.

A Strategic Blow to Iran

As the Russians withdraw support, Iran is now left extremely exposed. There had been a sense of inevitability in Iran's rise in the region, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula. The decline of al Assad's regime is a strategic blow to the Iranians in two ways. First, the wide-reaching sphere of influence they were creating clearly won't happen now. Second, Iran will rapidly move from being an ascendant power to a power on the defensive.

The place where this will become most apparent is in Iraq. For Iran, Iraq represents a fundamental national security interest. Having fought a bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s, the Iranians have an overriding interest in assuring that Iraq remains at least neutral and preferably pro-Iranian. While Iran was ascendant, Iraqi politicians felt that they had to be accommodating. However, in the same way that Syrian generals had to recalculate their positions, Iraqi politicians have to do the same. With sanctions -- whatever their effectiveness -- being imposed on Iran, and with Iran's position in Syria unraveling, the psychology in Iraq might change.

This is particularly the case because of intensifying Turkish interest in Iraq. In recent days the Turks have announced plans for pipelines in Iraq to oil fields in the south and in the north. Turkish economic activity is intensifying. Turkey is the only regional power that can challenge Iran militarily. It uses that power against the Kurds in Iraq. But more to the point, if a country builds a pipeline, it must ensure access to it, either politically or militarily. Turkey does not want to militarily involve itself in Iraq, but it does want political influence to guarantee its interests. Thus, just as the Iranians are in retreat, the Turks have an interest in, if not supplanting them, certainly supplementing them.

The pressure on Iran is now intense, and it will be interesting to see the political consequences. There was consensus on the Syrian strategy, but with failure of the strategy, that consensus dissolves. This will have an impact inside of Iran, possibly even more than the sanctions. Governments have trouble managing reversals.

Other Consequences

From the American point of view, al Assad's decline opens two opportunities. First, its policy of no direct military intervention but unremitting political and, to a lesser extent, economic pressure appears to be working in this instance. More precisely, even if it had no effect, it will appear that it did, which will enhance the ability of the United States to influence events in other countries without actually having to intervene.

Second, the current situation opens the door for a genuine balance of power in the region that does not require constant American intervention. One of the consequences of the events in Syria is that Turkey has had to reconsider its policy toward countries on its periphery. In the case of Iraq, Turkey has an interest in suppressing the Kurdistan Workers' Party militants who have taken refuge there and defending oil and other economic interests. Turkey's strategy is moving from avoiding all confrontations to avoiding major military commitments while pursuing its political interests. In the end, that means that Turkey will begin moving into a position of balancing Iran for its own interests in Iraq.

This relieves the United States of the burden of containing Iran. We continue to regard the Iranian sphere of influence as a greater threat to American and regional interests than Iran's nuclear program. The decline of al Assad solves the major problem. It also increases the sense of vulnerability in Iran. Depending on how close they are to creating a deliverable nuclear weapon -- and our view is that they are not close -- the Iranians may feel it necessary to moderate their position.

A major loser in this is Israel. Israel had maintained a clear understanding with the al Assad regime. If the al Assad regime restrained Hezbollah, Israel would have no objection to al Assad's dominating Lebanon. That agreement has frayed since the United States pushed al Assad's influence out of Lebanon in 2006. Nevertheless, the Israelis preferred al Assad to the Sunnis -- until it appeared that the Iranians would dominate Syria. But the possibility of either an Islamist regime in Damascus or, more likely, Lebanese-style instability cannot please the Israelis. They are already experiencing jihadist threats in Sinai. The idea of having similar problems in Syria, where the other side of the border is the Galilee rather than the Negev, must make them nervous.

But perhaps the most important losers will be Russia and China. Russia, like Iran, has suffered a significant setback in its foreign policy that will have psychological consequences. The situation in Syria has halted the foreign-policy momentum the Russians had built up. But more important, the Russian and Chinese hope has been that the United States would continue to treat them as secondary issues while it focused on the Middle East. The decline of al Assad and the resulting dynamic in the region increases the possibility that the United States can disengage from the region. This is not something the Russians or Chinese want, but in the end, they did not have the power to create the outcome in Syria that they had wanted.

The strategy of the dominant power is to encourage a balance of power that contains threats without requiring direct intervention. This was the British strategy, but it has not been one that the United States has managed well. After the jihadist wars, there is a maturation under way in U.S. strategy. That means allowing the intrinsic dynamic in the region to work, intervening only as the final recourse. The events in Syria appear to be simply about the survival of the al Assad regime. But they have far greater significance in terms of limiting Iranian power, creating a local balance of power and freeing the United States to focus on global issues, including Russia and China.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#10
You and William.

It's not overly thoughtful to conclude Syria's weaponry was Iraq's w/o some evidence. In fact, Syria would have been exceptionally stupid to accept old chemical weapons from their old enemy.

Nothing is more dangerous than old chemical/biological warfare components you have no previous knowledge of.
Reply
#11
Patrick, what I am referring to is not GA or GB nerve agent. That only requires a well developed fertilizer industry. What I have been talking about for years is the production of VX agent. Syria does not, nor ever had, the capability to produce VX, unless it has huge underground installations, and several billion loose dollars.

The point is that General Pacepa laid out, in great detail, how the Russians came into Iraq, and personally trucked all the VX out of Iraq, and into Syria(think Sarindar). And suddenly Syria is discussing nerve agents, with 'other' agents available. Well, guess which 'other' agents they are discussing? And guess where those WMDs went?

That was the point of my earlier post.

Operation Sarindar: The Soviet Plan to Hide Iraq’s WMD

Oh, if you know anything about VX, you will also know that it remains stable for decades, without breaking down. Once it is produced, it is there for use, as long as it is stored well. In fact, it is known as a Highly Persistent Agent. You can deny ground to the enemy by just spreading it out on the ground and leaving it there where it will kill people for a long time afterward. That is why it is officially labeled as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#12
What John said.
Reply
#13
VX is very very Bad Stuff. As a graduate of the US Army Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Warfare School, I was taught all about VX when it was still officially classified. Nobody was allowed to discuss it back then. It was really scary then, just as it is now.

Tabin (GA), Sarin(GB), and other members of the "G" family of nerve agents, were aerosols that did their dirty work immediately, dissipated quickly, and were then gone. Within minutes the area would be clear, except where the wind did not blow it away.

With VX, you really didn't make an aerosol out of it. In an explosion, the agent would still remain in smaller globules and drop to the ground, or foliage, where it would stick around for weeks without breaking down, or evaporating. This is what was trucked into Syria, by the Russians just before the US invasion. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush Adm. didn't allow Putin to move his people in there and whisk it away. Probably under the table sort of thing. Don't you remember all those Russian advisors coming into Iraq, and going out to Syria in all those trucks?

And that may be the very reason why Bush, et.al., never defended their being absent when nothing showed up. Something never really smelled right. Bush and Putin were always on good terms with each other. There could have been an undercover deal worked out as far as I know.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#14
(07-25-2012, 02:40 PM)John L Wrote: Patrick, what I am referring to is not GA or GB nerve agent. That only requires a well developed fertilizer industry. What I have been talking about for years is the production of VX agent. Syria does not, nor ever had, the capability to produce VX, unless it has huge underground installations, and several billion loose dollars.

The point is that General Pacepa laid out, in great detail, how the Russians came into Iraq, and personally trucked all the VX out of Iraq, and into Syria(think Sarindar). And suddenly Syria is discussing nerve agents, with 'other' agents available. Well, guess which 'other' agents they are discussing? And guess where those WMDs went?

That was the point of my earlier post.

Operation Sarindar: The Soviet Plan to Hide Iraq’s WMD

The Soviets? Didn't they go belly up in 1991, so what do they have to do with events in 2003?

"Intelligence sources estimate that Iraq had 100 million tons of munitions, which is an astonishing 60 percent of our own arsenal."

[Image: SoWhat1.gif]
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#15
John,

It is w/o logic that anyone would accept unstable chemical weapons from an enemy state in a massive rush to help them.

You are using evidence that is based on a man who left the service of his former state in 1989 for heaven's sake.

That's not evidence.

Would you accept USSR chemical weapons in 1960 to help them avoid getting caught with them? That's an analogy between Syria and Iraq.
Reply
#16
(07-26-2012, 05:49 PM)Palladin Wrote: John,

It is w/o logic that anyone would accept unstable chemical weapons from an enemy state in a massive rush to help them.

You are using evidence that is based on a man who left the service of his former state in 1989 for heaven's sake.

That's not evidence.

Would you accept USSR chemical weapons in 1960 to help them avoid getting caught with them? That's an analogy between Syria and Iraq.

Patrick, General Pacepa has proven to be an extremely reliable source of Intel information. And 'Sarindar' is just the very thing the Russians/Soviets would do as a matter of policy. I'm not one bit surprised in this.

And VX is very, very, stable as I have stated above. If normal storage methods are used, VX can be stored for years and still be in good shape for use later on. Were I a place like Syria, I would jump at the opportunity to house this chemical agent, knowing I had access to it just in case I felt the need to use it in the future. VX is just that important of a weapon.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
If the Russians did not move the WMD out of Iraq - why did the Russians, Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, Vladislav Achalov, and Igor Maltsev, receive honorary medals from the Iraqi defense minister? "I did not fly to Baghdad to drink coffee," was what Gen. Achalov told the media afterward. They were there orchestrating Iraq's "Sarindar" plan.
Reply
#18
Very good, Bill. Why did a Carribean country name it's highest peak Mt. Obama? Because he gave them nucular weapons.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#19
Formerly Boggy Peak, in Antigua, the name change was done because the Prime Minister, Baldwin Spencer, saw Barack as a black man in an historic position. He saw the race of the President as a momentous event. He even spoke about the history of black enslavement, not realizing Obama was from an Arabic tribe that did the enslaving and sold Blacks.

I guess you mean to say that the Russians, Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, Vladislav Achalov, and Igor Maltsev, received their medals from the Iraqi Security branch because of their historical achievements, also?
Reply
#20
(07-29-2012, 12:21 PM)quadrat Wrote: Very good, Bill. Why did a Carribean country name it's highest peak Mt. Obama? Because he gave them nucular weapons.

Out of sheer stupidity perhaps?

Or better yet, perhaps they were hoping to skim off some of that 'walking around' money he has been passing out? You know, the money we can no longer afford?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)